be-aware technical sub report 2 cargo model

1

Technical Sub Report 2:Oil Cargo Model

DOCUMENT TITLE: Oil cargo modelTASK: E3 AUTHOR: Y.Koldenhof PUBLISHED ON: 25 March 2014 Photo credit: Leon T/Shutterstock

3

The Greater North Sea and its wider approaches is one of the busiest and most highly used maritime areas in the world. With the ever‐increasing competition for space comes an increased risk of accidents that could result in marine pollution.

Currently the area has no overall risk assessment for marine pollution; risk is mapped with a variety of national risk assessments which are undertaken with differing methodologies; thus reducing comparability.

The BE‐AWARE project is therefore undertaking the first area‐wide risk assessment of marine pollution using a common methodology that allows the risk to be mapped and compared under different scenarios.

The project outcomes will improve disaster prevention by allowing North Sea States to better focus their resources on areas of high risk.

The project is a two year initiative (2012‐2014), co‐financed by the European Union, with participation and support from the Bonn Agreement Secretariat, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, with co‐financing from Norway.

4

Contents Glossary of Definitions and Abbreviations .................................................................................... 16

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6

2. Approach and assumptions ................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Main transport routes .....................................................................................................7

2.2 List of different oil types .................................................................................................8

2.3 Total number of ships with oil on board on a certain route. ...........................................9

2.4 Overall total number of ships on a certain route ..........................................................10

2.5 The percentage of ships that are loaded with oil .........................................................10

2.6 General remark ............................................................................................................11

3. Results ............................................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Mongstad .....................................................................................................................12

3.2 Rotterdam ....................................................................................................................13

3.3 Overall cargo model .....................................................................................................14

3.3.1 Average loading percentages ............................................................................14

3.3.2 Division of oil types ............................................................................................15

4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 16

ANNEX 1: List of substances .......................................................................................................... 17

Annex 2: Detailed results Rotterdam ............................................................................................ 20

Annex 3: Overall average loading probabilities ............................................................................ 23

Sub‐report 2: Oil cargo model

5

Executive Summary The main objective of the BE‐AWARE project is to conduct a risk assessment for the spillage of oil and HNS for the Bonn Agreement area. The approach followed in this project is described in the Method Note (BE‐AWARE, 2013). The risk assessment was performed for the years 2011 and 2020. Input for the risk calculation is the “cargo model”. This model describes the probability that a certain ship type and ship size sailing on a specific route is loaded with a certain type of oil. To determine these probabilities the following steps were followed:

‐ Determine main transport routes; ‐ Determine a list of substances and oil types; ‐ Determine per port the total number of ships (per type and size) with a certain oil type on

board on a certain route; ‐ Determine the total number of ships (per type and size) on a certain route (based on AIS and

the traffic database created by COWI); ‐ Determine the percentage of ships (per type and size) that were loaded with a certain type of

oil on a certain route. To carry out this analysis transport data were requested from ports in the area. Data were received from various ports. However, for the final analysis the data from Antwerp, Rotterdam, Mongstad and Hamburg were used. The data received from other ports were used to verify the results. To process the data the port data have been combined with the ships database, the port area list and the substances list. This resulted in the aggregated port data which has been compared with the AIS traffic database. The combination of these two databases results in the cargo model which was then used for the risk calculations.


6

1. Introduction The main objective of the BE‐AWARE project is to conduct a risk assessment for the spillage of oil and HNS for the Bonn Agreement area. The approach followed in this project is described in the BE‐AWARE Methodology Note. The risk assessment is performed for the years 2011 and 2020. The final risk in a certain area is the result of several steps:

1. Determination of the traffic intensity and composition in ship type and size classes; 2. Determination of the substances carried by the ships; 3. Determination of the probability of all possible incidents; 4. Determination of the probability of a spillage of oil or HNS given a certain type of incident; 5. Impact of the spillages on the environment.

The first four steps are addressed in the BE‐AWARE project. The last step will be addressed in the BE‐AWARE II project. This sub‐report describes the work carried out to determine the oil carried by ships, step 2. Main objective of the cargo‐modelling An accident can “only” result in a spill if the ship is indeed carrying oil or another hazardous substance. Therefore an important input factor for the risk modelling is the probability that a ship is loaded with a certain substance. Main goal of the cargo‐modelling is to determine the percentage of ships that are loaded per main transport route, per ship type and ship size and per substance type.


7

2. Approach and assumptions

The main goal of the “cargo model” is to determine the probability that a certain ship type and ship

size is loaded with a certain type of oil. Thus for example 85% of all tankers of size 7 sailing on a route

from the Atlantic to Rotterdam are loaded with a certain type of oil in the cargo tank.

To determine these probabilities 5 main steps were followed:

1. Determine main transport routes; 2. Determine a list of substances and oil types; 3. Determine per port the total number of ships (per type and size) with a certain oil type on

board on a certain route; 4. Determine the total number of ships (per type and size) on a certain route (based on AIS and

the traffic database created by COWI); 5. Determine the percentage of ships (per type and size) that were loaded with a certain type of

oil on a certain route (point 3/point 4).

In the following paragraphs more details are given about the five different steps. The results of the modelling are given in Chapter 3.

2.1 Main transport routes In preparation for the data request note the relevant ports in the Bonn Agreement area were selected by analysing the GT of oil and chemical tankers of all ports in the region. Through selecting the ports that together contribute 70 % of the oil and HNS GT respectively for the entire Bonn Agreement area the following list of ports was created (alphabetical order):

Amsterdam The Netherlands

Antwerp Belgium

Brofjorden Sweden

Cork Ireland

Coryton Great Britain

Dunkirk France

Falmouth Great Britain

Fawley Great Britain

Ghent Belgium

Gothenburg Sweden

Hamburg Germany

Hound Point Great Britain

Immingham Great Britain

Le Havre France

London Great Britain

Milford Haven Great Britain

Mongstad Norway

Rotterdam The Netherlands

Sture Norway

Tees Great Britain

Wilhelmshaven Germany

The detailed transport data was requested for these ports. To ensure a high quality analysis the detailed data needed to include the individual dangerous goods reports for 2011 (e.g. date, IMO/MMSI, substance name, amount, last port, next port). The detailed information was not available for all ports/countries. The main transport routes were therefore selected based on the data received. An overview is given in Figure 2‐1 of the different selected port areas. These areas were selected based on the analysis of the transported GT and the received information. For example Amsterdam is one of the relevant ports based on the transported GT, however no detailed information was received from Amsterdam so this port area was not selected separately.


8

Also the ships leaving the Bonn Agreement area were grouped into three “destinations”:

North: ships passing the Norwegian coast line toward Murmansk;

Baltic: ships passing Skagerrak and sailing to or from a port in the Baltic area;

Other: ship leaving or entering the area at other locations.

Figure 2‐1 Overview of the selected port areas and boundary lines for the transport routes

Finally the level of detail of the received information varied for the different port areas. For the further analysis the information from the following ports was used:

Antwerp

Rotterdam

Mongstad

Hamburg However, the information received from all the other ports and countries have been used to verify the final results and thus were indispensable. Data was also received from the SafeSeaNet database. This was the first time that SafeSeaNet data had been released for use in this type of project, although unfortunately, due to the format of the data, it could not be included in the cargo model.

2.2 List of different oil types Based on the data from the ports for which the detailed information had been received, a list of reported substances was created (containing more than 3000 goods). For all these goods it was determined whether or not it was oil and if so which type of oil. Based on their physical behaviour in


9

a spill at sea, four substances were selected to be modelled representing oil. An overview is given in Table 2‐1. Only substances and cargo types that are known supposed to have a significant impact upon the environment are included in the model. Type 0 (bunker oil including lubricants) is not a cargo type but represents the oil products used for propulsion and maintenance on all vessels. This means that this type of substance can be released from any vessel involved in an accident at sea. Categorising these substances alongside substances that can be transported as actual cargo leads to an advantageous data structure with regard to the further spill analysis process.

A list of different descriptions of the substances categorized as oil is given in Annex 1.

Table 2‐1 List of substances used in the modelling of vessel cargo and bunker oil

Type Representative substance

0 Bunker oil, lubricants

19 Crude oil

20 Fuel oil

21 Gasoil, diesel, petroleum, jet fuel and light fuel oil

22 Gasoline

2.3 Total number of ships with oil on board on a certain route.

The detailed data from the four port areas contained inter alia the following items:

IMO number

Date of the report

Last port

Next port

Activity (load/unload/transit)

Substance name

Amount of reported substance

In addition to the data received from the port (port data) three other databases were used when analysing the data:

Ships database: this database contains the ship type and ship size of each IMO number. The database is based on the AIS data and the traffic database developed during the project. This means that throughout the whole project the same ship type and ship size categories are used for the same ship.

Port areas list: the port of origin and destination given are the “port data”. It is a list of various port names. These names were “assigned” to the different defined port areas as shown in Figure 2‐1.

Substance list: states whether or not the substance is oil and if so which type of oil it is (see also 2.2, Table 2‐1).


10

By combining these three additional lists with the original port data, a processed port data set was created (see also Figure 2‐2). Example: a 30.000GT tanker calling at Rotterdam reports that it has unloaded crude oil and that its previous port was a port in the Middle East. This means that this ship carried crude oil on the route starting in the English Channel to Rotterdam.

From this processed port data the aggregated port data could be created. This last dataset contained

per ship type and ship size the total number of ships in 2011 that carried a certain type of oil on a

certain route to or from the port.

Figure 2‐2 Overview of the process of analysing the port data

2.4 Overall total number of ships on a certain route

Based on the traffic database created from the AIS data for 2011, the total number of ships (per type and size) per transport route is known. These numbers were based on the AIS analysis performed by the project and outlined in Technical Sub report 1: Ship traffic.

2.5 The percentage of ships that are loaded with oil

Finally the aggregated port data and the traffic data from AIS are combined to determine the actual percentage of the voyages per ship type and ship size that are loaded with oil.


11

Figure 2‐3 Overview of the process of determining the percentage of loaded tankers.

Distribution between oil types

First the percentage of ships that actually carried any oil was determined. In a second step the distribution between the different oil types was determined based on the substance description given and the amount of substance transported. Therefore two types of percentage are determined:

1. The percentage of ships (per type and size) carrying oil on a certain route. 2. The distribution of the different oil types per ship type/size on a certain route, given the fact

that a ship is carrying oil.

Example:

Based on the information received from Hamburg it could be concluded that 47% of all Chemical/Product tankers between 5000 and 10000GT on the route from outside the Bonn Agreement area (Atlantic) to Hamburg were carrying oil. 9% of these loaded tankers carried a substance classified as crude oil (type 19), 35% carried fuel oil (type 20), 33% carried light fuel oil (type 21) and finally 23% carried gasoline type of oil (type 22).

2.6 General remark The described general approach can only fully be applied for the routes to and from Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Mongstad, as the necessary detailed information was available only for these ports. For the other transport routes the percentages were based on the average loading percentages per ship type and ship size taken over the results for the four ports.


12

3. Results This chapter contains some of the detailed results for Mongstad and Rotterdam and in the final paragraph the overall results are presented. Furthermore all detailed results were provided to COWI as input for the risk assessment model from which the results are presented in Technical Sub Report 8: Maritime Oil Spill Risk Analysis.

3.1 Mongstad The overall results for the tankers sailing to and from Mongstad are given in Table 3‐1. In the table the total numbers of journeys for the different databases are given. The last rows contain the results, i.e. the percentage of ships that carried oil. For some categories the percentage is more than 100%. This is caused by some uncertainties in the data. It could be that some voyages were not observed in the AIS data. Also the data from Mongstad did not contain the actual IMO number of the ships, but only a ship type. This means that there can be some discrepancy between the ship’s type in the AIS data and the cargo data. Summary of the results

In total 1690 tankers departed from Mongstad in 2011 (based on AIS);

In total 1606 tankers reported loading oil in Mongstad;

This means that 95% of all tankers on a route departing from Mongstad are carrying oil;

In total 1705 tankers arrived in Mongstad in 2011 (based on AIS);

In total 152 tankers reported unloading oil in Mongstad;

This means that 9% of all tankers on a route to Mongstad are carrying oil (91% of all tankers arrived with no oil on board but loaded oil in Mongstad);

Since Mongstad is an oil‐exporting port these overall results are in line with what could be expected. Table 3‐1 Overview of results for Mongstad

Total number of journeys departing from Mongstad in the different

databases

Total number of journeys arriving in Mongstad in the different databases

Size class [GT] Size class [GT]

<10.000 >10.000 Total <10.000 >10.000 Total

Traffic database / AIS

Tanker, Crude 0 208 208 0 208 208

Tanker, Product/Chem/Other 930 552 1482 944 553 1497

Tanker total 930 760 1690 944 761 1705

Aggregated Port Cargo Data (journeys transporting oil)

Tanker, Crude 0 57 57 0 59 59

Tanker, Product/Chem/Other 875 674 1549 24 69 93

Tanker total 875 731 1606 24 128 152

Cargo model: %loaded with oil

Tanker Crude ‐‐ 27% 27% ‐‐ 28% 28%

Tanker, Product/Chem/Other 94% 122% 105% 3% 12% 6%

Tanker total 94% 96% 95% 3% 17% 9%


13

When considering the overall results in Table 3‐1 and the division between the different oil types in Table 3‐2, it can be concluded that the crude tankers (Tanker, crude) only transported crude oil. For the other tankers (Tanker, product/Chem/Other) the results are given in Table 3‐2. From the table it can be seen that the tankers arriving in Mongstad carrying oil (thus unloading oil), mostly carried crude or fuel oil. The tankers leaving Mongstad with oil on board carried mostly the lighter type of oils (Gasoil, diesel and gasoline). Table 3‐2 Overview of the division between the different types of oil transported to and from Mongstad.

Type of oil

Division of the types of oil for the journeys that carried oil

Load (present in

journeys from

Mongstad)

Unload (present in

journeys to

Mongstad)

Overall

19: Crude oil 5.2% 29.4% 6.4%

20: Fuel oil 5.3% 68.2% 8.6%

21: Gasoil, diesel light fuel oil 58.9% 2.4% 55.9%

22: Gasoline 30.6% 0.0% 29.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.2 Rotterdam An overview of the detailed results for Rotterdam is given in Annex 2. A summary is presented in Table 3‐3. The results show that 85% of the crude tankers arriving in Rotterdam are loaded with oil and that almost 50% of these tankers are also loaded when leaving the port again. Overall 46% of all chemical, product and crude tankers arriving in Rotterdam are loaded with a substance that has been categorized as oil. And 32% of these tankers have oil on board on the transport route leaving Rotterdam.

Table 3‐3 Summary of the results for Rotterdam.

Ship type

% of ships loaded

with oil arriving in

Rotterdam

% of ships loaded with oil

departing from

Rotterdam

Bulk 0% 0%

Bulk/oil 20% 17%

Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 2% 1%

Tanker, chemical/prod. 39% 29%

Tanker, crude oil 85% 49%

Tanker, food 0% 0%

Tanker, gas 2% 1%

Tanker, product 82% 62%

Total 34% 24%

Total Tankers (chem., prod, crude) 46% 32%


14

Figure 3‐1 shows the division between the various types of oil for the different tanker types, based

on the information from Rotterdam. The figure shows clearly that more than 60% of the oil

transported by crude tankers has been of the type “crude oil”, as expected. For the other types of

tanker this percentage is much lower at below 15%. The division has been determined on the basis of

the number of reports for a certain type of oil and the amount that has been reported.

Figure 3‐1 Overview of the division per type of oil for Rotterdam.

3.3 Overall cargo model

The overall cargo model consists of loading percentages and distributions of oil types for the different transport routes per ship type and ship size. The percentages for the ships sailing to and from Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Mongstad were determined based on the provided detailed information. For the other transport routes these percentages are based on the average of the known overall percentages for those four ports.

3.3.1 Average loading percentages

A detailed overview of these results is given in Annex 3. Table 3‐4 shows the summary of these results. The percentages given in the table are the percentages of tankers that are loaded with a substance classified as oil, e.g. on average 45% of all product tankers of size class 6 are loaded with oil.

The percentages for chemical and gas tankers appear to be low. However the numbers only show the results for oil, so this does not automatically mean that the tankers are sailing empty but that they are not loaded with oil.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tanker, crude oil Tanker, chemical/prod. Tanker, product Total

Type of tanker

Division of type of oil transported to and from Rotterdam per tanker type

22: Gasoline

21: Light fuel oil

20: Fuel oil

19: Crude oil


15

Table 3‐4 Overview of the average loading percentages for the different tanker types.

Tanker type Size class [based on GT]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 31% 0% 16% 5% 22% 0% 0% 0%

Tanker, chemical/prod. 29% 7% 27% 30% 40% 25% 0% 0%

Tanker, crude oil 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 21% 41% 29%

Tanker, gas 0% 6% 8% 10% 9% 0% 0% 0%

Tanker, product 36% 22% 41% 34% 68% 45% 57% 0%

3.3.2 Division of oil types

Based on the detailed information for Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg an average division of oil types could be determined. An overview is given Figure 3‐2. 65% of all loaded crude oil tankers carry actual crude oil. For both other type of tankers (chemical and product) less than 10% carried crude oil, when loaded.

Figure 3‐2 Overview of the average division between oil types given the fact that a tanker is loaded


16

4. Conclusions The purpose of this task was the development of a cargo model for the risk calculations within the BE‐AWARE project. From the work carried out the following can be concluded:

1. The oil cargo model prepared is based on information from the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam,

Mongstad and Hamburg. This information was sufficient to build a representative database of the

oil transported in the Bonn Agreement area. The information received from other ports was used

for the verification of the database.

2. The various databases received were built up differently and information on the substances

included in the databases was not standardised. This means that databases contained spelling

mistakes and also that for identical substances different names were used. This complicated the

analyses. It is recommended developing a standardised database for the storage of this

information, preferably combining the names of substances with the UN‐number.

Glossary of Definitions and Abbreviations

HNS Hazardous and Noxious Substances IMO International Maritime Organization MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity, number to identify a ship GT Gross Tonnage UN number This is a four digit number that identifies hazardous substances and articles Overview of ship size classes

Ship size class GTmin GTmax

1 100 999

2 1000 1599

3 1600 4999

4 5000 9999

5 10000 29999

6 30000 59999

7 60000 99999

8 100000 300000


17

ANNEX 1: List of substances

SubstanceName SubstanceName

AARDGASCONDENSAAT INSULATING OIL

AARDGASCONDENSATE JET A‐1

AARDOLIE JET FUEL

AARDOLIE PRODUKTEN KEROSINE

ACRYLIC ACID CRUDE KIRKUK CRUDE

ALKANES (C10‐C26) LA BLEND STOCK (DOW)

ALKANES (C6‐C9) LIAV 200

ALKYL (C18+) TOLUENES LIAV 230

ALKYL (C3‐C4) BENZENES LIAV 270

ALKYL (C5‐C8) BENZENES LIGHT CYCLE OIL

ALKYL (C7‐C9) NITRATES LIGHT CYCLE OIL (STATOIL)

ALKYL (C9) BENZENES LINEAR ALKYL (C12‐C16) PROPOXYAMINE ETHOXYLATE

ALKYL (C9+) BENZENES LOW SULPHER FUEL OIL

ALKYL BENZENE DISTILLATION BOTTOMS LOW SULPHUR FUEL OIL

ALKYL BENZENES LOW SULPHUR VACUM GAS OIL

ALKYL TOLUENE SULPHONIC ACID LSFO

ALKYL(C9+) BENZENES LSVGO

ALKYL(C9+)BENZENES LUBEOIL ‐ BASE OIL SN 600

ANILINE LUBOIL

ANILINE MARINE POLLUTANT LUBRICANTS

ANILINE MARINE POLLUTANT LUBRICATING OILS AND BLENDING STOCKS

ANILINE ‐ MARINE POLUTANT MARCOL 82 (ESSO)

ANILINE MARINE POLLUTANT MEDIUM SULPHUR FUEL OIL

ANLINE MARINE POLLUTANT MINERALE OLIEN

AP/E CORE 100 (EXXONMOBIL) MVIN 170 (SHELL)

AP/E CORE 150 (EXXONMOBIL) MVIN 40 (SHELL)

AP/E CORE 2500 (EXXONMOBIL) MVIN170

AP/E CORE 600 (EXXONMOBIL) NAFTA

AUTOMOTIVE DIESEL OIL N‐ALKANES (C10+)

AVGAS NAPHTA

AVIATION GASOLINE NAPHTHA

BASE OIL NAPHTHALENE CRUDE OR NAPHTHALENE REFINED

BASE OIL SN150 NEXBASE‐3030

BASE OIL SOLVENT NEUTRAL SN 150 NEXBASE‐3043

BASE OIL SOLVENT NEUTRAL SN 500 NEXBLT RENEWABLE DIESEL

BASE OIL SOLVENT NEUTRAL SN 900 NEXBTL RENEWABLE DIESEL

BENZEEN NYNAS BT12

BENZENE NYNAS T110

BENZENE AND MIXTURES HAVING 10 PERCENT BENZENE OR MORE NYTEX 4700

BENZENE AND MIXTURES HAVING 10% BENZENE OR MORE NYTEX 810 (NYNAS NAPHTHENICS AB)

BENZENE AND MIXTURES HAVING 10% BENZENE OR MORE (I) OLEFIN MIXTURE (C7‐C9)

BENZINE OLEFIN MIXTURE (C7‐C9) C8 RICH

BENZINE (GASOLINE) OLEFIN MIXTURE (C7‐C9) C8 RICH STABILISED

BENZINE UN 1203 OLEFIN MIXTURES (C5‐C15)

BIO DIESEL OLEFIN MIXTURES (C5‐C7)

BIO ETHANOL OLEFIN MIXTURES (C7‐C9) C8 RICH

BIO FUEL OF GASOLINE AND ETHYL ALCOHOL OLEFIN MIXTURES (C7‐C9) C8 RICH STABILIZED

BIODIESEL OLEFINS (C13+ ALL ISOMERS)

BIODIESEL – RME OLOA 760 J

BIO‐FUEL BLENDS OF GASOLINE AND ETHYL ALCOHOL OSEBERG CRUDE

BITUMEN PARA XYLENE

BK REFORMED/PLATFORMED GASOLINE PARAFFIN SYNTHETIC

BREGA CONDENSATE PARAFFIN WAX

BRIGHTSTOCK PARRAFFIN WAX

BRIGHTSTOCK 150 (KPE) PHENOL

BUTANE PHENOL SOL.

BUTANE‐PROPANE MIXTURES PRIMOL 352 (ESSO)

BUTANOL PRIMOL 382 (ESSO)

BUTANOLS PRIMOL 542 (ESSO)


18


CARBON BLACK FEEDSTOCK (DOW) PROPYLENE

CARBON BLACK FEEDSTOCK (HCGO/CLO) PYGAS

CASTOR OIL PYGAS ‐ AROMATIC MIXTURE

COAL TAR PYGAS CONTAINING BENZENE

COAL TAR OIL ( CARBOM BLACK FEEDSTOCK ) PYROLISIS GASOLINE

COKER GASOIL PYROLYSIS GASOLINE

COKER HEAVY GASOIL (STATOIL) PYROLYSIS GASOLINE (CONTAINING BENZENE)

COKER NAPHTA RBHC (EXXON MOBIL)

CONDENSAAT REFORMATE BENZENE HEART CUT

CONDENSATE REFORMATE BENZENE HEARTCUT

CONDESATE REFORMATE TX

CPC REGULAR UNLEADED GASOLINE

CRUDE RENEWABLE DIESEL

CRUDE BENZENE RUSSIAN BLEND CRUDE OIL

CRUDE C4 RUWE AARDOLIE

CRUDE OIL RUWE OLIE

CRUDEOIL SHELLSOL 100/120

CUMENE SHELLSOL A (SHELL)

DIESEL SHELLSOL A100 (SHELL)

DIESEL OIL SHELLSOL A150 (SHELL)

E90 SHELLSOL D100 (SHELL)

E90 (FUELSTREAMERS SHELLSOL D40 (SHELL)

ETHYLENE SHELLSOL D60 (SHELL)

EXXOL D110 SHELLSOL D70 (SHELL)

EXXOL D60 SHELLSOL D90 (SHELL)

EXXOL D60(S) SHELLSOL DMA (SHELL)

EXXON D60 SHELLSOL DSC (SHELL)

EXXSOL D 220/230 SHELLSOL H

EXXSOL D 40 SHELLSOL HF250D

EXXSOL D 80 SHELLSOL T

FATTY ACID METHYL ESTERS (M) SHELLSOL TD

FATTY ACIDS (C12+) SLACK WAX

FATTY ACIDS (C16+) SMEER OLIE

FATTY ACIDS 12+ SMEEROLIE

FATTY ACIDS C16+ SN 100 (KPE)

FATTY ACIDS C8‐C10 SN 150

FATTY ACIDS ESSENTIALLY LINEAR (C6‐C18) 2‐ETHYLHEXYL ESTER. SN 300 (KPE)

FUEL OIL SN 500

FUEL OIL SLURRY SN 600

FUELOIL SOLVENT NEUTRAL 150 (ESSO)

FUELOIL. SOLVENT NEUTRAL 150 (MOBIL)

GAS CONDENSATE SOLVENT NEUTRAL 600 (ESSO)

GAS OIL OR DIESEL FUEL OR HEATING OIL LIGHT STABILIZED CONDENSATE

GASCONDENSATE STOOK

GASOIL STOOK OLIE

GASOIL 50PPM STOOKOLIE

GASOLIE STOOKOLIE HIGH SULPHUR FUEL OIL

GASOLINE STYRENE MONOMER

GOFINATE VACUM GASOIL SYRIAN HEAVY CRUDE OIL

GTL FUEL (SHELL) T4000 BASE OIL

HEAVY AROMATICS (AROMATICS MALAYSIA) T9 BASEOIL (NYNAS NAPHTHENICS)

HEAVY AROMATICS (NAPHTHA DISTILLATE) TALL OIL CRUDE

HEAVY CYCLE OIL TOLUENE

HEAVY GASOIL HS ULSD

HEAVY NAHPHTA ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESELOIL

HEPTANE (ALL ISOMERS) UNLEADED GASOLINE

HEPTANOL (ALL ISOMERS) (D) UREA SOLUTION

HEPTENE (ALL ISOMERS) VHVI 5.4 (SHELL)

HEXANE (ALL ISOMERS) VHVI 6

HEXANES VLIEGTUIGBENZINE

HEXENE (ALL ISOMERS) YUBASE 3 (SK CORPORATION)

HIGH SULFUR FUEL OIL YUBASE 4

HIGH SULPHER FUEL OIL YUBASE 4 (SK CORPORATION)

HIGH SULPHER VACUUM GASOIL YUBASE 4 (SK CORPORATION) PLUS


19


HIGH SULPHUR FUEL OIL YUBASE 4 PLUS (SK CORPORATION)

HIGH SULPHUR VACUM GASOIL YUBASE 6

HIGH SULPHUR VACUUM GAS OIL YUBASE 6 (SK CORPORATION)

HIGH SULPHUR VACUUM GASOIL YUBASE 8 (SK CORPORATION)

HMD ZWARE VACUUM GASOLIE

HS VACUUM GASOIL

HSFO

HVI 105 (SHELL)

HVI 160B (SHELL)

HVI 60 (SHELL)

HVI 65

HVI 650 (SHELL)

HVI 65B (SHELL)

HYDOCARBON GAS MIXTURE LIQUEFIED N.O.S. (MIXTURE OF HYDROCARBONS 20

HYDROCARBON GAS MIXTURE LIQUEFIED N.O.S.

HYDROCARBON GAS MIXTURE LIQUIFIED N.O.S.

HYDROCARBON GAS MIXTURE LIQUIFIED N.O.S.

HYDROCARBONOUS LIQUID

HYDROCARBONS LIQUID N.O.S.

HYDROCRACATE (ESSO)


20

Annex 2: Detailed results Rotterdam

Overview of the total number of journeys in the different traffic and cargo databases for

Rotterdam. The last rows (orange) show the overall loading percentages for the different ship

types and ship sizes.

Total number of journeys departing from Rotterdam in the different databases

Size class [based on GT]

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Traffic database COWI

Bulk 475 14 403 249 245 78 1464

Bulk/oil 3 11 14

Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 8 9 462 88 65 632

Tanker, chemical/prod. 12 13 1775 1117 1811 196 4924

Tanker, crude oil 14 17 70 703 187 98 1089

Tanker, food 55 134 25 214

Tanker, gas 56 444 94 40 14 648

Tanker, product 13 11 151 35 102 80 69 461

Total 33 144 3455 1365 2516 1245 512 176 9446

Cargo database Rotterdam

Bulk 21 0 0 0 0 0 21

Bulk/oil 2 0 2



Tanker, crude oil 0 0 37 90 35 43 204

Tanker, food 0 0 0 0

Tanker, gas 5 15 3 11 1 34

Tanker, product 11 10 112 8 115 33 9 296

Total 19 16 736 442 791 133 44 43 2224

Pload (Cargo/Traffic)

Bulk ‐‐ ‐‐ 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Bulk/oil ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 67% 0% ‐‐ 14%

Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2%

Tanker, chemical/prod. 64% 14% 33% 38% 35% 4% ‐‐ ‐‐ 34%

Tanker, crude oil ‐‐ ‐‐ 0% 0% 52% 13% 19% 44% 19%

Tanker, food ‐‐ 0% 0% ‐‐ 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0%

Tanker, gas ‐‐ 8% 3% 3% 26% 7% ‐‐ ‐‐ 5%

Tanker, product 85% 88% 74% 21% 113% 41% 12% ‐‐ 64%

Total 56% 11% 21% 32% 31% 11% 9% 24% 24%

Total Tankers (chem, prod,crud) 56% 35% 29% 35% 38% 13% 17% 44% 30%


21

Total number of journeys arriving in Rotterdam in the different databases

Size class [based on GT]

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Bulk 465 15 400 245 246 77 1448

Bulk/oil 3 10 13



Tanker, crude oil 14 17 72 700 192 94 1089

Tanker, food 54 135 24 213

Tanker, gas 53 444 96 40 14 647

Tanker, product 13 11 153 35 100 81 67 460

Total 33 139 3444 1367 2493 1236 515 171 9398


Bulk 52 0 0 0 0 0 52

Bulk/oil 3 0 3



Tanker, crude oil 0 0 69 642 168 69 948


Tanker, gas 23 215 72 18 4 331

Tanker, product 1 0 118 32 145 68 59 423

Total 7 25 989 613 1322 732 228 69 3984


Bulk ‐‐ ‐‐ 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Bulk/oil ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 86% 0% ‐‐ 20%



Tanker, crude oil ‐‐ ‐‐ 0% 0% 96% 92% 88% 73% 87%

Tanker, food ‐‐ 0% 0% ‐‐ 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0%

Tanker, gas ‐‐ 43% 48% 75% 46% 25% ‐‐ ‐‐ 51%

Tanker, product 8% 0% 77% 91% 145% 83% 88% ‐‐ 92%

Total 22% 18% 29% 45% 53% 59% 44% 40% 42%

Total Tankers (chem., prod,crude) 22% 6% 30% 43% 64% 74% 88% 73% 51%


22

Total number of journeys arriving and departure Rotterdam in the different databases

Size class

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Bulk 940 29 803 494 491 155 2912

Bulk/oil 6 21 27



Tanker, crude oil 28 34 142 1403 379 192 2178

Tanker, food 109 269 49 427

Tanker, gas 109 888 190 80 28 1295

Tanker, product 26 22 304 70 202 161 136 921

Total 66 283 6899 2732 5009 2481 1027 347 18844


Bulk 74 0 0 0 0 0 74

Bulk/oil 5 0 5



Tanker, crude oil 0 0 106 732 203 112 1152


Tanker, gas 27 230 75 29 5 366

Tanker, product 12 10 230 40 260 100 68 719

Total 26 41 1725 1055 2114 865 271 112 6207


Bulk ‐‐ ‐‐ 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Bulk/oil ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 76% 0% ‐‐ 17%



Tanker, crude oil ‐‐ ‐‐ 0% 0% 75% 52% 54% 58% 53%

Tanker, food ‐‐ 0% 0% ‐‐ 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0%

Tanker, gas ‐‐ 25% 26% 40% 36% 16% ‐‐ ‐‐ 28%

Tanker, product 46% 44% 76% 56% 129% 62% 50% ‐‐ 78%

Total 39% 14% 25% 39% 42% 35% 26% 32% 33%

Total Tankers (chem,prod,crude) 39% 21% 30% 39% 51% 44% 53% 58% 41%


23

Annex 3: Overall average loading probabilities

Overview of the different overall loading probabilities for Antwerp, Rotterdam and Mongstad for

the Tankers. Last columns provide two options for the assumption of the overall unknown loading

conditions (probability for the ships on the routes for which no detailed data is available)

Average P Load

VesselID VesselTxt GTclass Rdam Antwerp Mongstad AveragePLoad = Combination

41 Tanker, chemical/prod. 1 58.0% 0.0% -- 29.0%

42 Tanker, chemical/prod. 2 14.8% 0.0% -- 7.4%

43 Tanker, chemical/prod. 3 33.4% 1.0% 47.1% 27.1%




47 Tanker, chemical/prod. 7 -- -- -- 0.0%

48 Tanker, chemical/prod. 8 -- -- -- 0.0%

51 Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 1 0.0% -- 62.7% 31.3%

52 Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


54 Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 4 9.5% 0.0% -- 4.8%


56 Tanker, chemical incl. Tanker, others 6 -- -- -- 0.0%



61 Tanker, product 1 46.2% 0.0% 62.7% 36.3%

62 Tanker, product 2 43.8% -- 0.0% 21.9%

63 Tanker, product 3 75.6% 0.5% 47.1% 41.0%

64 Tanker, product 4 56.4% 0.0% 45.2% 33.9%

65 Tanker, product 5 128.9% 6.4% 67.4% 67.6%

66 Tanker, product 6 62.1% 4.1% 69.7% 45.3%

67 Tanker, product 7 49.7% 20.0% 100.0% 56.6%

68 Tanker, product 8 -- -- -- 0.0%

71 Tanker, crude oil 1 -- -- -- 0.0%

72 Tanker, crude oil 2 -- -- -- 0.0%

73 Tanker, crude oil 3 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.0%

74 Tanker, crude oil 4 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.0%

75 Tanker, crude oil 5 74.5% 16.1% 0.0% 30.2%

76 Tanker, crude oil 6 52.1% 6.0% 5.7% 21.3%

77 Tanker, crude oil 7 53.7% 0.0% 68.2% 40.6%

78 Tanker, crude oil 8 58.1% -- 0.0% 29.0%

be-aware technical sub report 2 cargo model

Documents